Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.
Comments
140,581 - 140,600 of 225,686 Comments Last updated 55 min ago

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146371
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
RR uses capitals and punctuation.
I think we have to give him credit for that.
And, he has a slightly better opinion of gays.
But that's as far as I'll go.
Stop it.

You're getting all mushy.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146372
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is what it is. You haven't convinced me that they aren't weapons yet because you haven't convinced me that a gun isn't something designed or used for inflicting bodily harm.

Make up your mind....

"designed to inflict bodily harm"
"used to inflict bodily harm"

Which is it?

Any number of items can be used for the latter.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146373
Jan 1, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Tazers *can* be lethal.
Bean bag guns *can* be lethal.
Assault rifles *can* be lethal.
OFFS.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146374
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You are getting desperate.
Ever hear the story that you can't get wounded by an M16?
We were told in training that the bullet was designed to be unstable and that once it entered flesh it started tumbling which caused major damage to multiple organs and massive blood loss.
Sounds kinda lethal to me.
So now you're trying to dance around the whole weapon thing by claiming that an assault weapon is not a LETHAL weapon.
Seriously?
A tazer is not a lethal weapon.
A bean bag gun is not a lethal weapon.
An assault rifle is a lethal weapon.
No you are skirting the issue that military tactics are in fact to wound and not kill
so you take 3 people out the fight.

That is the criteria of the design of an assault rifle.

I also said they can quite efficiently kill, but you asked intent
the intent is to wound.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146375
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> To get dinner and defend oneself period.
Of course everything that can be used to kill other people with...will be used to kill other people.
That's just how people are......
Yup.

Hands kill people.

Hands were designed.

Hands are weapons.

ugh

What's wrong with these people?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146376
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now you would deny my right to recreational TNT?:)
I would NEVER do that.

Blowing shit up is cool!

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146377
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are establishing a singular intent where more terms and intents apply. Can you say the same about airplanes when the first sale of an airplane was to the Army who had a military intent.
So since the military has used the airplane since its conception to kill people you have to define airplane=weapon.
Islamist use commercial airplanes as weapons .
Airplanes were designed to be weapons.
"Airplane" is a vague and broad term.

Some airplanes are meant to be used as weapons. Some are meant for transportation. Whether or not something is a weapon depends on its design. Guns, at least the ones which I (and many others) want restrictions on, are very obviously weapons. Some guns are not weapons (for example - a flare gun or a gun designed for competitions), however, most are designed with an intent to do as much damage as possible.

“I am but a humble duck.”

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146378
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Make up your mind....
"designed to inflict bodily harm"
"used to inflict bodily harm"
Which is it?
Any number of items can be used for the latter.
Designed to be used to cause bodily harm.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146379
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you are establishing a singular intent where more terms and intents apply. Can you say the same about airplanes when the first sale of an airplane was to the Army who had a military intent.
So since the military has used the airplane since its conception to kill people you have to define airplane=weapon.
Islamist use commercial airplanes as weapons .
Airplanes were designed to be weapons.
Actually, airplanes original intent in the military was surveillance.

After a while, the pilots started to use their pistols to shoot at the enemy on the ground and then they started dropping bombs, by hand, out of the open cockpit.

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch [Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre](circa 1911)
He was Supreme Commander of Allied forces, 1918

"Aviation is good for sport, but for the Army it is useless!"
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146380
Jan 1, 2013
 
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what Bobblah writes. I've only read one of his posts. That was all I needed and I'm still not sure what it said.
That's why I missed Bobblah.

I scroll right past.

Just Results, same thing.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146381
Jan 1, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bows and crossbows aren't designed to kill, they'll say.......
How about silencers.

Think we should have the right to own silencers?

After all, the noise can be damaging to unprotected ears.

Neighbors might find the noise annoying.

And you might actually get off a
second shot at that deer you didn't put down with the first.

After all, a silencer is only a little muffler.

You'd have to beat somebody over the head with it to kill them.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146382
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
My argument is that guns are weapons.
I agree with that. My question is: So?

The great majority of them are purchased because they are weapons. They're much more effective for self defense and self preservation than a bag of feathers is. Regulations are in place. There are hundreds (thousands?) of laws in place that deal with firearms whether federal, state or local. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol. It doesn't work with narcotics and it won't work with guns. Prohibition creates a black market and it makes citizens criminals. It never works.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146383
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No you are skirting the issue that military tactics are in fact to wound and not kill
so you take 3 people out the fight.
That is the criteria of the design of an assault rifle.
I also said they can quite efficiently kill, but you asked intent
the intent is to wound.
And THEN kill.

Do they use a different gun for that?

That must get cumbersome.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146384
Jan 1, 2013
 
wilderide wrote:
If it did, the vigilantes would lose anyway. Badly.
That is the point! It would be too costly to normal people to attempt on both sides.
wilderide wrote:
Fortunately I'm not limited to the two options you suggest.
Sorry, I was not trying to force you into a false dichotomy!
wilderide wrote:
Moreover, as I pointed out before, is it rational to pay such a high price every day in gun violence nationally in the hope that highly unlikely scenarios are thwarted, assuming guns would thwart them at all?
I wonder what would happen if we started to tighten the restrictions we already have or what the effect of new laws would have. Would people turn to other means? Would we get the firearms out of the criminal's hands? I would go into better scenarios for killing a large group of people, but I would rather not give an irrational person any help.
wilderide wrote:
Well that's exactly it. Guns aren't the only problem, nor is tinkering with them and their regulation the only solution. We need to address public education, the economy, job opportunities, and many other complex social issues. But that doesn't mean we don't make progress where we can.
100% agree! I am only asking that we make sure that we are making the right moves.
wilderide wrote:
I can guarantee you that if the government "turns on you" no number of gun you might own would make any difference.
I disagree. If you were a soldier and every time you walked the streets, one of your buddies was shot, it would start to wear on you. The numbers would always be on the side of the civilians and if they don't give up and don't join the military...
wilderide wrote:
That's great, but it's perfectly valid and reasonable to weigh what rights we have against the cost of providing them. I'm not personally arguing that guns should be banned outright. I think that is too unrealistic in our society.
Yes, we need to sit and talk it out. I would give almost anything to have those children home safe or for people to feel safe going to see a movie, but I don't want to follow blindly because of feelings. I want to do what is right.
wilderide wrote:
So far in my life I've managed perfectly well by reasoning with people, and avoiding situations where physical violence would be likely or necessary.
Me too! But I know people who have not be so fortunate.
wilderide wrote:
Not in that regard. Being saved by something that was problematic in the first place is just another argument not to have the problematic thing to begin with.
If by not having the problematic item, you die, what was gained? Curing the symptom does not cure the decease.

Like someone mentioned before; take the violence off the TV and out of movies, that sounds like a good start! Add a few love scenes for christ's sake! Show a set of boobies instead of a gun!
wilderide wrote:
We agree.:)
;) we agree on a lot of issues! Cool heads will find a way.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146385
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop it.
You're getting all mushy.
I'm in touch with my feminine side.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146386
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I would NEVER do that.
Blowing shit up is cool!
Finally! A rational conclusion on this thread. Never thought I'd see the day...

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146387
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can buy assault weapons at your local Walmart.
But too many people seem to be using them to slaughter large numbers of people.
Thanks.
Or do you think there haven't been enough mass murders yet.
What is your limit on your number of people, both doing the killing and being killed? I need to know so that I can determine what else we need to ban or restrict.

"Or do you think there haven't been enough mass murders yet." That is just downright nasty. I wouldn't have expected something like that from you.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146388
Jan 1, 2013
 
WesTheDuck wrote:
<quoted text>
Designed to be used to cause bodily harm.
Ahhhh... Combining the two now, are ya?

Is that their only design?

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146389
Jan 1, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Reduced to quoting bumper stickers.
Perfect.
http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2011/5/9/1a...

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146390
Jan 1, 2013
 
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. IMHO it's even more embarrassing to have your religious hypocrisy pointed out to you by a non-believer than otherwise.
<quoted text>
Nope. I'm my observation is correct. My skepticism has nothing whatever to do with it.
<quoted text>
Is the scripture not correct if quoted by an atheist? Lol.
<quoted text>
So Paul was wrong in Galatians? Interesting.
As far as Matthew 5:39.

It would depend upon if the one doing the slapping had any help and if he had a gun. If there are witnesses a call to the police would be in order where assault charges could be filed. Then of course there are civil penalties that could be considered. So yes, a slap in the face could cost a offender more than he bargained for.

Allowing one to slap you in face while on the job would be advantages. The offender will defiantly lose his/her job. And may end up spending some time in jail.

Weapons such as guns were not yet in place in the Bible.

However there have been weapons used by Gods people.

Did not David kill Goliath with a high speed projectile?

Then cut is head off with Goliaths sword?

Was not Joshua a great warrior with his leadership and sword?

Luke 11:21

King James Version (KJV)

21. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••